Nerf AI conquering City States?

[Ferocitus]

The argument that players should be less war-shy and liberate conquered city-states is completely facile

No, if you want to play as a peacenik then come up with strategies and
tactics yourself. Don't expect the base game to be nerfed to suit your
(minority) preference. Or use mods that suit your style.

It's completely illogical for (most) AI players to conquer city-states and remove any bonuses they provide, especially when they get so many settlers and other leg-ups in the early game.

It's not a bad tactic if they remove CS that could provide bonuses to other
civs or human players.

Obviously some AI should be very aggressive, no problem with that (I'm a war-monger by temperament ), but in just about every game the city-states are getting decimated - the devs might as well remove them altogether as things stand.

Remove all city-states in the base game because they don't fit
your preferred way of playing? Use a mod to play as Pingu, but
don't ruin the way the majority like to play.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Rather than nerfing it, a better solution might be to incentivise keeping city-states alive? Or have them be more effective at defending themselves. I'm not sure how exactly they might go about this but I agree that the AI seems overly fond of attacking them - and it should really only target neighbouring city-states instead of marching across the map to do so.

In my current game Tamar wiped out Lisbon and Stockholm early on (this was on Prince). It worked out in the end as I liberated them but as I had allied Stockholm early, and was trying to play nice with Georgia, it was a bit of a pain.

I wish you could ask/bribe the AI to make peace with a city-state like in Civ V.

 

[StrideColossus]

...

I think you missed my point - I wasn't saying that the AI aggression should be nerfed to suit peacenik players, that indeed would be crap. What I was trying to say was that with the R&F update the city-states are getting wiped out in the majority of games, meaning that the entire mechanic is pretty much redundant until those CS can be liberated.

I'm generally a war-monger myself and have no qualms about conquering a CS that is of no use to my strategy or removes a useful CS ally from my enemies (hello Jerusalem!), but otherwise it makes sense to keep those CS as allies given all their bonuses. The AI should be programmed with the same pros/cons strategy. Unfortunately it seems that their current strategy is see-CS-kill-CS.

 

[blackcatatonic]

No, if you want to play as a peacenik then come up with strategies and
tactics yourself. Don't expect the base game to be nerfed to suit your
(minority) preference. Or use mods that suit your style.

Use a mod to play as Pingu, but
don't ruin the way the majority like to play.

I'm not sure belittling people who like to play the game differently from you is an especially helpful approach.

I'm also not sure what the evidence is for your assertion that a peaceful playstyle is some sort of weird niche that most people don't enjoy. In my opinion, both militaristic and peaceful playstyles should be equally valid without either group of players resorting to mods.

 

[Kurnn]

Um, one kinda huge feature with Civ 6 is just that all AI don't act the same. If you don't like that then sorry.

 

[GermanSettler]

A bit OT, but I actually wondered recently whether somehow the CS's AI is better than the Civ's AI.

I witnessed Vilnius and Buenos Aires very competently besieging neighouring civs.

Vilnius managed to wipe out the AI's army and destroyed all defences of its capital (and would have conquered it if it could). Buenos Aires almost got their but the AI brought in too many units from the other end of its territory in the end. I thought that if a civ would conquer me this way and make use of besieging a city war would be much more dangerous for me...

 

[Karpius]

Oh no! The AI is acting like a human player and trying to conquer everything in sight! The game is ruined! Broken!

I remember players complaining before how the AI didn't seem aggressive enough. I also recall some players complaining they never got to liberate a CS because the AI never took any! My head explodes from the contradictions!

I should add that, once again, I am left to feel I am playing a different game from other folks because I have not experienced this on a scale even close to what some have reported here.

As someone who plays peacefully, I have found R&F can make my peace game easier in some cases, so the challenge of losing a few CS's in the mix is actually welcome.

 

[Ferocitus]

I think you missed my point - I wasn't saying that the AI aggression should be nerfed to suit peacenik players, that indeed would be crap. What I was trying to say was that with the R&F update the city-states are getting wiped out in the majority of games, meaning that the entire mechanic is pretty much redundant until those CS can be liberated.

No, they are not wiped out. They are still there for whoever wants to liberate them.
If they were razed immediately I could accept your point, but they aren't.

I'm generally a war-monger myself and have no qualms about conquering a CS that is of no use to my strategy or removes a useful CS ally from my enemies (hello Jerusalem!), but otherwise it makes sense to keep those CS as allies given all their bonuses.

That's your preferred style. Why should AI's play according to those rules?
Taking C-S and use them for their own purposes is fine by me. And anyway,
you don't know what bonuses are good for each AI at different points in the
game and which ones aren't.

I'm not saying that the AI is not without flaws, but expecting certain
behaviour from it with regard to C-S is just not reasonable.

The AI should be programmed with the same pros/cons strategy.

Hahaha. Because it would make the game easier for you?

Unfortunately it seems that their current strategy is see-CS-kill-CS.

That strategy has got you bamboozled, so it's not a complete failure.

 

[Krajzen]

On one hand I dislike this, on another hand I also disliked how in civ5 something like 80-90% of city states were untouched for the entire game because everybody was afraid to touch them for crazy warmongering penalties.

Maybe they should simply start with walls? Or AI should value allying with them a bit more.

 

[Ferocitus]

I'm also not sure what the evidence is for your assertion that a peaceful playstyle is some sort of weird niche that most people don't enjoy.

I didn't say it wasn't a perfectly valid way of playing and enjoying
the game. It's just an unreasonable expectation to change the base
game to suit that minority style.

In my opinion, both militaristic and peaceful playstyles should be equally valid without either group of players resorting to mods.

I have no problem if people want to play an ahistoric type of game.
If you want to only ever build religious units or buildings, I wish you well,
but don't expect a change to the base game to help you. Get a mod or
accept the formidable challenge you have set yourself.

If you want to win peacefully then you have chosen a hard row to hoe
and all power to you if you can pull it off.

 

[StrideColossus]

...

I was trying to make what I thought was an objective criticism of how the game is working out, obviously you prefer just to insult me and other posters who are doing the same.

Back on topic: To illustrate the problem I have Pericles in my latest game, he's obviously going for a cultural victory judging by his score and number of cultural buildings and wonders, and yet he's taken out three cultural CS in his vicinity (no luxuries or natural wonders in any of them) and yet left a religious CS (presumably of little or no use to him, with a luxury) inside his territory - that's just dumb!

 

[SharTeel]

Some of you guys are totally missing the point...it's perfectly fine is a warmpngering sob like Montezuma or Gorgo goes on a killing spree to expand his territory because a bordering CS is blocking his expand...but when you see someone like Tomyris (backstab adverse, she doesn't like player declaring surprise war on CS) or Pericles (who likes CS) going all out to wipe a CS on the other side of the continent just because "lol no warmonger penalty in ancient era" (when they could declare on the human player that is next to their border), then we have a huge problem...also, by having all CS removed before t50 you pretty much lose one game mechanic :/ I mean, I've had games on emperor difficulty with 6 CS out of 12 removed by t40 (checked with reveal all before ragequitting)

 

[Ferocitus]

I was trying to make what I thought was an objective criticism of how the game is working out, obviously you prefer just to insult me and other posters who are doing the same.

You keep going on about how the game doesn't suit you and your preferred play
style and that you want it changed in your favour. You don't want to use mods,
you can't accept that you have set yourself a challenging way to win, and you
aren't prepared to develop counter tactics and strategies. Insead you want devs
to make it easier for you.

Back on topic: To illustrate the problem I have Pericles in my latest game, he's obviously going for a cultural victory judging by his score and number of cultural buildings and wonders, and yet he's taken out three cultural CS in his vicinity (no luxuries or natural wonders in any of them) and yet left a religious CS (presumably of little or no use to him, with a luxury) inside his territory - that's just dumb!

Because you know details of all the alliances he has with other AI's, how
they fit his agendas, and all the other influences that might favour taking
the C-S?

Get over it and develop counter-strategies because Genghis and the other
aggros aren't going to sing Kumbaya with you.

Some of you guys are totally missing the point...it's perfectly fine is a warmpngering sob like Montezuma or Gorgo goes on a killing spree to expand his territory because a bordering CS is blocking his expand...but when you see someone like Tomyris (backstab adverse, she doesn't like player declaring surprise war on CS) or Pericles (who likes CS) going all out to wipe a CS on the other side of the continent just because "lol no warmonger penalty in ancient era" (when they could declare on the human player that is next to their border), then we have a huge problem...also, by having all CS removed before t50 you pretty much lose one game mechanic :/ I mean, I've had games on emperor difficulty with 6 CS out of 12 removed by t40 (checked with reveal all before ragequitting)

Hahahaha. Sounds like a flawless victory to Pericles.
Roll again: Y/N?

 

[liv]

Maybe the city states could start with at least as many units as the AI. Deity AI win these wars too easily.
But I would not like to see this aspect of the game disappear. On deity I can calculate that the chances I get attacked from how many city states are nearby. It is part of the game. And liberating them is a good bonus.
And I take city states as well.

 

[Athmos]

For those who don't like that AI attacks a city state, you could defend them. Warmonger isn't an issue in ancient and hardly even in classic.

I don't really understand why this change poses any bigger problem? Not all city states gets conquered, just like not all civs gets conquered early, but some do. Why shouldn't a civ attack another city to get it for themselves? Every player does that.

What I don't like is that it makes the whole envoy and influence system useless/redundant, thereby diminishing their interest as a game mechanic. Of course we can play around it. But I think it significantly reduces the available strategies. You might or might not be able to protect / or benefit from CS emergencies on your continent, but you'll have to go to war for that. Influence and interaction with CS was one of the rare mechanisms in the game going against the overwhelming advantage of warmongering, and in the current version this whole aspect is all but rolled in with combat. And really, by the classical age there are probably one third of city states around as there was in vanilla.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I didn't say it wasn't a perfectly valid way of playing and enjoying
the game. It's just an unreasonable expectation to change the base
game to suit that minority style.

Again, what's the evidence that it's a "minority" style?

I have no problem if people want to play an ahistoric type of game.
If you want to only ever build religious units or buildings, I wish you well,
but don't expect a change to the base game to help you. Get a mod or
accept the formidable challenge you have set yourself.

If you want to win peacefully then you have chosen a hard row to hoe
and all power to you if you can pull it off.

There seems to be a touch of reductio ad absurdum going on here. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that they would rather the AI never attack city-states at all. I don't have a problem with it myself; perhaps I've been unlucky but current levels of city-state sliceyness on Prince have been higher than pre-expansion King. I've seen AIs go out of their way to attack city-states when it goes against their agendas and makes little practical sense (e.g. they can't hold the city because of flipping). That is what I think should be addressed.

I do also think that city-states should be better able to defend themselves, and that it should be possible to intercede peacefully as it was in Civ V (make it costly to bribe them, sure, but make it possible). I don't think either of those changes would necessarily make the more direct, warmongering approach less doable.

 

[Ever Adrift]

I would like to see the AI attack city-states a bit less, especially early on. I use a mod that gives all CS walls and a mod that gives CS extra starting units - the have the intended effect. However, they also make being a suzerain really early a bit OP - though that doesn't occur enough to dissuade me...

 

[SharTeel]

Hahahaha. Sounds like a flawless victory to Pericles.
Roll again: Y/N?

The bad part is that I have an old cpu, so restarting takes a long time

 

[Ferocitus]

Again, what's the evidence that it's a "minority" style?

I'm not saying it's not popular, but it is not the majority style.
The majority do not play for a purely peaceful victory.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that they would rather the AI
never attack city-states at all.

No, but there are those who do not want to use force to liberate
C-S taken by AIs, and they want the base game changed to help them win
that way. It's as if they they don't want to use the offensive capabilities of
many units and they want some form of in-game bonus for their decision
for playing that way.

I've seen AIs go out of their way to attack city-states when it goes against their agendas and makes little practical sense (e.g. they can't hold the city because of flipping). That is what I think should be addressed.

It can be addressed now. Liberate them, or take them for yourself,
and reap the benefits before AIs do. Or get a mod that gives them
city walls, or some other assistance to make your chosen style easier.

I would like to see the AI attack city-states a bit less, especially early on.

Why? Because you can't win at the level you've been accustomed to?
Play at a lower level if you can't win and if that's important to you.

I use a mod that gives all CS walls and a mod that gives CS extra starting units - the have the intended effect.

Perfect!

However, they also make being a suzerain really early a bit OP - though that doesn't occur enough to dissuade me...

I hope you find a happy balance eventually.

 

[Hammurabbit]

I guess it's mostly about expectations. If you expect that most city states are around for all the game (and that is the intention of city state), obviously you will be upset by the current state of the game. This was how the game behaved in the beginning, so I can see why it upsets some people.

Personally, I enjoy that city states become a scarcer resource, and you may have to step in and protect or liberate them sometimes when they play an important role for you. They trigger emergencies, which spices up the game. I do agree though, that sometimes it seems a bit illogical how the AI is targeting them for conquest rather than augmenting their science/gold/faith/culture output.